Abstract
The Sino-Indian border incidents which occurred during the summer of 1959 led to the publication of a series of White Papers containing the official correspondence between the two countries. Not only did they reveal that Chinese intrusions into the north-eastern corner of Ladakh had been discovered prior to July, 19582 and the construction of a motor road as part of the Sinkiang-Tibet highway three months later,3 but they also contained an exchange of notes concerning the disputed grazing grounds of Bara Hoti, in which each side kept referring to the principles of Panchsheel from July, 1954 onwards. Three notes are dated shortly after Chou En-lai’s visit to New Delhi, but prior to the Bandung Conference.4 The Chinese maintained that Indian troops had crossed the border into the Tibet region of China, which was “not in conformity with the principles of non-aggression and friendly coexistence between China and India, and the spirit of the joint communiqué issued recently by the Prime Ministers of China and India.” The Indian reply stated that on the contrary Tibetan officials had tried to cross the border without proper documents and it literally returned the Chinese phrase just quoted. Later the terminology became considerably harsher.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
The Chinese way is to do something rather mild at first, then to wait a bit, and if it passes without objection, to say or do something stronger. But if we take objection to the first statement or action, they urge that it has been misinterpreted, and cease, for a time at any rate, from troubling us further.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Quotation from XIIIth Dalai Lama. Bell, Sir Charles, Portrait of the Dalai Lama, p. 99.
Note by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, July 2, 1958. White Paper I, p. 22.
Note by the Indian Foreign Secretary to the Chinese Ambassador. White Paper I, p. 26–27.
Notes from the Chinese Counsellor of July 17, 1954 and August 13, 1954; Indian note of Aug. 27, 1954. White Paper I, p. 1–3. See Map 1.
Note given to the Chinese Counsellor, Nov. 5, 1955; note of May 2, 1956 concerning Nilang, which belongs to the same sector. White Paper I, p. 10–11.
Lok Sabha, Aug. 28, 1959. Prime Minister on Sino-Indian Relations, Vol. I, p. 94.
Ibidem, p. 101.
Sept. 24, 1956. White Paper I, p. 19.
White Paper II, p. 48.
Informal Indian note of Oct. 18, 1958. White Paper I, p. 26.
Indian note verbale of July 2, 1958. White Paper I, p. 22. See Map 3.
Chinese memorandum. White Paper I, p. 28. Nehru later explained that between 1950 and 1959 India had sent 16 expeditions to various parts of Ladakh. They did not object to Chinese use of caravan routes as this was common practice, which was not supposed to imply sovereignty over the area. Suspicions that the Chinese road was crossing Indian territory were raised by a small map published in Peking in 1957 and two patrols were despatched to locate its extremities. They discovered the road, which was a levelled caravan track, but reported that there were no Chinese posts established to the west of it. Further advances took place after the Tibetan revolt and were placed between June and October, 1959. Lok Sabha Debates, Feb. 23, 1961. Vol. L., col. 1699–1700.
Note from the Foreign Office of China to the Counsellor of India, July 10, 1958. White Paper I, p. 62.
Note from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to the Chinese Embassy, Aug. 2, 1958. White Paper I, p. 48.
Letter of Dec. 14, 1958. White Paper I, p. 48–51.
Memorandum from the Foreign Office of China to the Counsellor of India. White Paper I, p. 47.
Letter of Jan. 23, 1959. White Paper I, p. 52–54.
Letter from the Prime Minister of India to the Prime Minister of China, March 22, 1959. White Paper I, p. 55–57.
Mao’s speech on “Contradictions,” Feb. 27, 1957. The plan period referred to was 1958–62.
Richardson, H. E. Tibet and its history, p. 203, wrote that the Dalai Lama requested the removal of Chinese troops, the restoration of the status quo existing at the death of the XIIIth Dalai Lama, reinstatement of the Chief Minister who was dismissed in 1952 and abandonment of the programme of communist reforms.
Nehru in Lok Sabha, April 2, 1959. Prime Ministeron Sino-Indian relations, Vol. I, p. 24,27.
Dalai Lama’s press conference, June 20, 1959. Dalai Lama and India, p. 159.
Lok Sabha, March 23, 1959. Prime Minister on Sino-Indian Relations, Vol. I, p. 5.
Hsinhua, March 28, 1959.
March 30, 1959. Ibidem, p. 7–8.
His arrival in India was, curiously enough, first announced by Peking.
Secretariat G.P.L March 31, 1959. Sen, Chnakya, Tibet Disappears, p. 305.
Prime Minister on Sino-Indian relations, Vol. I, p. 16–17.
Ibidem, p. 16–29.
April 5, 1959. Ibidem, Vol. II, p. 11.
Hsinhua, summaries of April 22 and 23, 1959. The question of Tibet and the rule of law, p. 163–170.
April 18, 1959. Dalai Lama and India, p. 155–158.
The Hindu, April 25, 1959. Chou En-lai had expressed the hope that the Dalai Lama would be able to free himself from the grip of the rebels and return to the motherland. Speech of April 18, 1959. Doc. on Internat. Affairs 1959, p. 173.
Statement by Foreign Secretary to Chinese Ambassador, April 26, 1959. White Paper I, p. 68–69.
April 27, 1959. Prime Minister on Sino-Indian Relations, Vol. I, p. 37.
Debate of May 4, 1959. Sen, Chanakya, op. cit., p. 217–228.
Prime Minister on Sino-Indian relations, Vol. I, p. 44–45.
May 8, 1959. Sen, Chanakya, op. cit., p. 235–257.
Resolution of April 28, 1959. Ibidem, p. 313.
Resolution of May 12, 1959.
White Paper I, p. 73–76.
Statement to Chinese Ambassador of May 23, 1959. Ibidem, p. 77–78.
June 20, 1959. Dalai Lama and India, p. 162. His Cabinet apparently had denounced the 1951 agreement on March 25, 1959 (i.e. before his arrival in India) because of persistent Chinese violations.
Statement of June 30, 1959. Sen, Chanakya, op. cit., p. 364.
Note of Aug. 28, 1959. White Paper I, p. 44. See Map 4.
Notes of Sept. 1, 1959. White Paper II, p. 1 and 3.
Note of Sept. 10, 1959. White Paper II, p. 8–10.
Letter of Sept. 8, 1959. White Paper II, p. 27–33.
Letter of Sept. 26, 1959. White Paper II, p. 34–46.
Note of Nov. 4, 1959. White Paper II, p. 22.
Letter of Nov. 16, 1959. White Paper III, p. 47.
Letters of Dec. 17 and 21, 1959. Ibidem, p. 52 and 58.
Chinese note of Dec. 26, 1959. White Paper III, p. 60.
Nehru’s letter of Feb. 5, and the Indian note of Feb. 12, 1960, were handed over together by the Indian Ambassador. White Paper III, p. 83 and 85.
Bechtoldt, H., Indien oder China, p. 317.
Chinese notes of April 3, 1960. White Paper IV, p. 8–16.
The Times of April 27 reported Nehru’s confirmation that the Chinese approach was to balance its possession of Ladakh against NEFA. Lok Sabha debates, Vol. XLIII, No. 57, col. 13791, however, quote him as saying that frequent attempts were made to “equate” the eastern sector with the western sector, which only refers to the nature of the disputes in these areas. See also Hindustan Times of April 27, 1960 and P. C. Chakravarti, India’s China policy, p. 121.
Dr. K. Shridharani in Amrita Bazar Patrika, Feb. 22, 1960.
Communiqué of April 25, 1960.
Lok Sabha Debates, Vol. XLIII, No. 57, col. 13798.
Peoples Daily, Peking, April 27, 1960.
Chinese report, p. 188.
Lok Sabha Debates, op. cit., col. 13791–96 and No. 60, col. 14784.
Chinese summary of statements leading to the adoption of the agenda. Report of the Officials, p. 9–11.
Indian report, p. 262. See Map 2.
Ibidem, p. 94. See p. 80.
Indian summary, Ibidem, p. 4–8.
White Paper III, p. 87, 89; IV, p. 9.
Chinese report, p. 3–5, 178, 186–187.
Indian report, p. 285–286 and 281.
Ibidem, p. 236–237.
Chinese report, p. 177–178.
Indian report, p. 111–115. In fact, the Amban, though well disposed towards the British mission never signified acceptance of the Convention and showed great skill at evasion.
Chinese report, p. 25; White Paper IV, p. 14. See p. 139–145 for the legal aspects of the Simla Convention and the McMahon Line and p. 13–18 for their history.
Chinese report, p. 173.
Indian report, p. 157.
Indian report, p. 212; Chinese note of Aug. 21, Indian note of Aug. 24, 1950. On Nov. 20, 1950 Nehru declared in the Lok Sabha “The McMahon Line is our boundary, map or no map.”
Indian report, p. 98–100 and 271–276. See also White Paper III, p. 60, 91–92. China argued that the passes could not be regarded as points on the border. Her draft for the 1954 agreement had read “The Chinese Government agrees to open the following passes in the Ari district of the Tibetan region of China for entry and exit by traders and pilgrims of both parties,” but India had proposed to say that “Traders and pilgrims... may travel by routes traversing the following localities and passes.” Finally agreement was reached on “Traders and pilgrims of both countries may travel by the following passes and routes.” Peking interpreted her concession only as consent to a wording which did not involve a decision on ownership of the passes.
Chinese report, p. 30–21.
Lok Sabha Debates, Feb. 15, 1961, Vol. L, col. 149.
Indian notes of Dec. 30, 1960, March 30, June 16, Sept. 19, 1961; Chinese notes of Feb. 21, May 4, Aug. 6, 1961. White Paper V, p. 20–37.
Reply to parliamentary question on March 6, 1961. Burma Weekly Bulletin March 16, 1961, Vol. IX, No. 46, p. 428.
Indian report, p. 203.
Indian report, p. 124, Chinese report, p, 173.
Lok Sabha Debates, Feb. 4, 1961, Vol. L, No. 1, col. 1–24.
Kami Singhji (Bikaner). Ibidem, Feb. 20, 1961, Vol. L, No. 5, col. 944. Nehru in No. 8, col. 1702.
Mrs. Lakshmi Menon in Lok Sabha. Ibidem, Aug. 10, 1961, Vol. LVI, col. 1159.
Chinese note of Aug. 1, 1960. White Paper IV, p. 43–45; Indian note of Nov. 9, 1960. Ibidem, p. 77–80.
Lok Sabha Debates, Nov. 20 and 28, 1961. Vol. LIX, col. 151–153, 1858.
Chinese note of Nov. 30, 1931. White Paper VI, p. 3–7.
Indian note of Feb. 26, 1962. White Paper VI, p. 10–13.
Chinese note of March 22 and Indian note of April 30, 1962. White Paper VI, p. 22 and 33.
Chinese notes of April 30, 1962 (White Paper VI, p. 39) and Sept. 20, 1962. White Paper VII, p. 80–81.
Indian notes of July 11, and 17, 1962. Ibidem, p. 213, 216.
Chinese note of May 11, 1962. White Paper VI, p. 198. China proposed negotiations on Dec. 3, 1961. Ibidem, p. 188.
Indian note of May 14, 1962, and Chinese note of June 2, 1962. White Paper VI, p. 43, 57.
New York Times, Aug. 7. Indian note of July 26, 1962. White Paper VII, p. 3–4.
Chinese note of Aug. 4, 1962. White Paper VII, p. 17–18.
New York Times, Aug. 14; Lok Sabha Debates, Aug. 14, 1962. Vol. VI, col. 1776, 1753.
Indian note of Aug. 22; Chinese note of Sept. 13; Indian note of Sept. 19, 1962. White Paper VII, p. 36–37, 71–73, 78.
Chinese note of Aug. 4, Indian note of Aug. 8, and Chinese note of Sept. 16, 1962. Ibidem, p. 14–15, 22, 74.
Indian note of Oct. 6, 1962. Ibidem, p. 100–102; Nehru’s letter of Nov. 14, White Paper VIII, p. 15–16.
The Times, Oct. 13, 1962.
The Times, Oct. 23, 1962.
Statement of the Government of China, Oct. 24, 1962. The Sino-Indian Boundary Question, p. 1–5. The three proposals were communicated to the Indian Prime Minister in a personal letter from Chou En-lai of the same date. White Paper VIII, p. 1.
Indian note of Oct. 26, 1962. White Paper VII, p. 125–127.
Letters of Oct. 27 and Nov. 4, 1962. White Paper VIII, p. 4–10.
Letter of Nov. 15, 1962. The Sino-Indian Boundary Question, p. 6–36.
Comments on Premier Chou En-lai’s letter to Heads of Afro-Asian states, p. 10–11.
Letter of Oct. 24, published by Indian Ministry of External Affairs.
The Times, Nov. 9 and 15, 1962.
Statement by Chinese Government, Nov. 21. The Sino-Indian Boundary Question, p. 39–46; White Paper VIII, p. 17–21.
The Times, Nov. 22, 1962.
Letter of Chou En-lai of Nov. 28; Nehru’s reply of Dec. 1, 1962. White Paper VIII, p. 24, 28.
The Times, Dec. 5, 1962.
Chinese Memorandum of Dec. 1963. White Paper VIII, p. 31–35.
Lok Sabha Debates, Dec. 10, 1962, Vol. XI, col. 5088–92. China was informed on Dec. 19. White Paper VIII, p. 35–38.
Ceylon News-letter, London, Jan. 2, 1963 with communiqué of Dec. 12, 1962. The conference was attended by General Ne Win, and after his departure on Dec. 11 by Foreign Minister U Thi Han; Foreign Minister Dr. Subandrio; H. R. H. Prince Norodom Sihanouk; Aly Sabry, Chairman of the Executive Council of the U.A.R.; Minister of Justice K. A. Ofori Atta; and Mrs. Sirima Bandaranaike. The Ceylonese Ambassador to Burma, G. S. Peiris, visited New Delhi and Peking to hand over the proposals of the conference. Text also in White Paper IX, p. 184–7.
Communiqué of Jan. 8, 1963 at Peking.
Chinese memorandum of Dec. 29, 1962. White Paper VIII, p. 39–46.
Communiqué of Jan. 13, 1963, India News, London, Vol. 16, No. 3. Besides the Ceylonese delegation, led by Mrs. Bandaranaike, talks were held with delegations from the U.A.R. and Ghana.
White Paper IX, p. 184–186.
Lok Sabha Debates, Jan. 23, 1963, Vol. XII, col. 5878–99.
Hsinhua, Jan. 25, 1963.
Feb. 12, 1963. Press Release 63005.
White Paper IX, p. 25–27.
Lok Sabha, Feb. 25, 1963, India News, London, Vol. 16, No. 9.
Chinese note of March 2, 1963. White Paper IX, p. 27–28.
Letter of March 3, 1963. Ibidem, p. 3.
Nehru’s letter of March 5 ; Indian note of April 3 ; letter from Chou En-lai of April 20, 1963. Ibidem, p. 5, 34, 10.
New Statesman (1963) 700–701.
Press conference on Dec. 20, 1963. Press Release 63062.
Communiqué of Feb. 18, 1964.
The Times, Oct. 21, 1963; Feb. 27 and March 2, 1964.
The Times, Feb. 25, 1964. White Paper X, p. 3–6.
Lok Sabha Debates, April 13, 1964. A.I.C.G. session at Bombay, May 17. See India News, London, Vol. 17 (1964) No. 16, 21. Mrs. Lakshmi Menon, Minister of State for External Affairs, declared in Colombo in June, 1964 that the Colombo powers should also take the next step to break the stalemate. Ibidem, No. 26.
White Paper X, p. 109, 112; Chinese note of March 23, 1964. Press Release 64029.
Note of April 27, 1963. White Paper IX, p. 124.
Note of June 10, 1963. Ibidem, p. 146.
White Paper X, p. 78.
Patterson, G. N., Peking versus Delhi, p. 152.
Press releases 61055 and 61057.
The Times, Jan. 18, 1961.
Press Release 62009.
Note of May 10, 1962. White Paper VI, p. 96.
Note of May 31, 1962. Ibidem p. 99–102.
Joint communiqué of Dec. 28, 1962. Press Release 62054.
Agreement signed on March 2, 1963 in Peking. Press Release 63009.
The Times, March 4, 1963.
Indian notes of Dec. 31, 1962 and March 2, 1963; Chinese note of Feb. 21, 1963. White Paper VIII, p. 48; IX, p. 1–3.
Press Release 63053.
Agreement of Dec. 26, 1962. The Times, Dec. 27. The history of Outer Mongolia shows an interesting parallel with Tibet. In December 1911 she declared herself independent, but a Sino-Russian declaration of 1913 (accepted by O.M. in 1915 with the treaty of Kiachta) limited her freedom. China recognised her autonomy and would refrain from sending troops (except a representative at Urga and an escort) ; Russia declared that O.M. was under the suzerainty and formed part of the territory of China. Political and territorial questions would be settled in tripartite negotiations. In the absence of detailed maps there was no definition of boundaries and O.M. was only said to comprise a number of regions. In 1919 the Chinese President cancelled her autonomy and sent troops across the Gobi desert. In 1921 the Mongolian People’s Republic was founded with Soviet help; it was recognised by nationalist China in 1946 after a plebiscite. The declaration of 1913, which was known to McMahon at Simla, influenced his proposals at the conference for a distinction between Outer and Inner Tibet.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1967 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Eekelen, W.F. (1967). The Border Dispute with China. In: Indian Foreign Policy and the Border Dispute with China. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6555-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6555-8_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-6436-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6555-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive